Queen's Counsel

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have a policy on whether to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that an applicant who is a Member of the House of Commons shall be appointed to the rank of Queen's Counsel; and, if so, what that policy is.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The policy is that all appointments to the rank of Queen's Counsel are on merit alone. The criteria for appointment are set out in the Guide for Applicants and in the Guide for Consultees. The current guides have been available by post and on the department's website since 28 August 2001.

BBC World Service: Arabic Translation

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the cost to the BBC World Service of translation services in Arabic.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Translation of material for broadcast, both into and from English, is an integral part of all language service operations within the BBC World Service and is carried out by programme staff as part of their normal duties. All languages combine translation of central BBC material in English with original journalism by producers and editors. The costs of translation are part of the overall costs of programme production.

BBC World Service: Arabic Translation

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements exist for translation by outside contractors of BBC World Service programmes.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The BBC World Service's 43 language services are run by BBC members of staff. Some translation work is done by freelancers or workers on a casual basis, but this is a very small proportion. All output is subject to BBC guidelines and rigorous review procedures.

BSE: Sheepmeat

Lord Vinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the likelihood of BSE being found in sheepmeat, given that sheep are normally slaughtered under the age of 18 months, that contaminated meat and bone feed were withdrawn in 1986 and that recent research shows maternal transmission of BSE in cattle to be unlikely.

Lord Whitty: Theoretically, sheep could have contacted BSE from infected animal feed and it could have spread from sheep to sheep despite the introduction of feed controls.
	To date, no cases of BSE have been found in the national sheep flock. However, the numbers tested are still relatively low because there is no validated, rapid method for differentiating between BSE and Scrapie. We have to use a number of different tests, including where possible bioassay in mice.
	Of course the Government have in place a comprehensive risk management strategy should the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep become a real one. This includes removal of specified risk material from the food chain for all animals over 12 months old, consistent with available risk assessment advice from the EU Scientific Steering Committee.

Illegally Imported Animal Products

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many of the 1,142 seizures of illegally imported animal products that have been made since April 2001 were made from passengers arriving by air; and in how many cases the passengers were (a) refused entry to the United Kingdom and (b) prosecuted.

Lord Whitty: There have been 832 seizures that have been recorded centrally by Defra for illegally imported animal products by passengers travelling via airports.
	HM Customs and Excise has prosecuted three people for CITES offences involving illegal meat imports. Two were convicted and one was acquitted but convicted under a separate animal health offence.
	No one has been refused entry into the UK because of illegally importing animal products.

Illegally Imported Animal Products

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce prominent signs at Britain's airports warning passengers that the import of bushmeat and other unlicensed meat is illegal, in the way as is done at airports in the United States.

Lord Whitty: There are already hard-hitting posters on display at all major airports. These postes warn passengers of what meat is not allowed to be brought in and state the penalties for bringing in prohibited animal products.
	We are continuously reviewing the impact of the campaign and will be undertaking market research to help assess the impact of the posters and provide information on how public awareness can be improved still further.

Packaging Waste

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the figures reached in 2001 of:
	(a) material specific packaging waste; and
	(b) general packaging waste that businesses must recover and recycle; and
	What percentage of businesses in the United Kingdom are required to comply with efforts to reduce packaging waste.

Lord Whitty: The recovery and recycling targets in Article 6(1) of the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste, 94/62/EC, are implemented in Great Britain by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended).
	In order to comply with the requirements in the directive, recovery and recycling targets for 2001 under the packaging regulations were 56 per cent for recovery and 18 per cent for material-specific recycling of packaging waste. Final outturn figures for 2001 are not yet available but data received to date suggest that, if all obligated parties met their 2001 obligations, these targets should be met. This would mean that the UK had recovered 4.6 million tonnes of packaging waste in 2001 ie. 50 per cent. We would expect to recycle some 45 per cent. We also anticipate that all materials will meet the 15 per cent material-specific target in the directive, with the possible exception of plastics.
	Only businesses handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging and with financial turnover of more than £2 million in their most recently audited accounts are obligated under the regulations if they perform one or more of the following activities: manufacturing raw materials for packaging; converting materials into packaging; filling packaging; selling packaging to the final user; or importing packaging or packaging materials into the UK. Figures received so far for 2001 indicate that there were some 6,000 registrations under the packaging regulations, which, because one registration can cover more than one business (eg where there is a group registration), means that between 10,000 and 14,000 businesses were registered.

Farming and Food

Baroness David: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will respond to the Policy Commission's report on the future of farming and food.

Lord Whitty: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a seminar on 26 March 2002 with leaders of the farming and food sectors and others with an interest in the environment and the rural economy and identified early actions to drive forward the commission's report. A new strategy for sustainable farming and food, incorporating a definitive response to the Policy Commission's report, will be published in the autumn. Actions to develop and deliver the strategy have been announced, including the publication today of Sustainable Food and Farming—Working Together: a document intended to focus discussion on key issues.
	Copies of the document are available from the Libraries of both Houses. Details of the announcement and the document are also available in electronic form from the Defra website, www.defra.gov.uk.

Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to distribute the waste minimisation and recycling fund.

Lord Whitty: Following the recent consultation, we shall very shortly announce how we intend to distribute the fund. Guidance will be sent to all local authorities and will be available on the Defra website. Copies of the guidance and results of the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.

Defra Scientific and Regulatory Agencies Review

Lord Rea: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to conduct a review of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs scientific and regulatory agencies.

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced a review of the three science laboratories; the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (CEFAS); and the two regulatory agencies, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the Veterinary Medicines Agency (VMD).
	The review will be conducted by a team attached to Defra's Corporate and Service Delivery Directorate General, working in consultation with other government departments with an interest. The review team will be advised by a steering group composed of a majority of non-departmental members.
	The terms of reference for the review are:
	"To evaluate the effectiveness of the operation of Defra agencies, with regard to the departmental aim and objectives and their relationship with the department and the sectors they serve".
	The review is to be conducted in two parallel processes: for those executive agencies due for quinquennial review in 2002 (VLA, CSL, CEFAS), to conduct an evaluation of their performance since the date of the last review and to examine their relationship with core-Defra, other government departments (OGDs) and the devolved administrations (DAs); for the regulatory executive agencies (PSD and VMD), to take into account the conclusions of, and developments since, the completion of their quinquennial reviews.
	In so doing, the review will: analyse the requirements of government, industry and society for core science facilities and key skills for the provision of R&D, scientific support services, surveillance, policy and regulatory functions, advice and emergency response capability; analyse and identify the work required to support the core requirements, examine the likely trend of Defra and other public funders' requirements, including developments in horizon scanning and contingency planning; consider the possible options and evaluate the best models for delivery of the services and the organisation of the functions required, including policy advice and associated work; assess the implications for Defra, OGDs, the DAs and the agencies about the choice of those models; assess the implications for non-core activities; and assess the implications for commercial activity.
	The review team will consult customers, stakeholders, scientific opinion and other interests and will take into account relevant reviews and studies, in particular the SR2002 science and research cross-cutting review and Defra's prioritisation of science programmes exercise; the work on the development of science in Defra, including a new science and innovation strategy; and the Cabinet Office review of agency policy.
	In light of the findings of the consultation exercise, the review will examine the most appropriate freedoms, controls, financial regimes, governance arrangements and performance management to ensure the optimum delivery of a high quality service, providing good value for money.
	The review team will report with recommendations to Ministers through the management board by the end of October 2002.
	Interested parties are invited to submit their views to the review team by 30 May 2002. Details of how to contact them are contained in Defra's news release, issued today.

Local Air Pollution Control: Charging Schemes

Lord Rea: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	If they will report on the 2002–03 charging schemes for (1) local air pollution control under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (2) local authority integrated pollution prevention and control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

Lord Whitty: Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991. Interim charges for processes which are subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 were introduced in August 2000.
	With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made revised schemes for England in respect of the Environmental Protection Act, and England and Wales in respect of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. The schemes specify the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 2002.
	The fees and charges in both schemes have been increased by 1.8 per cent broadly in line with inflation. However, my department is writing to local authorities to advise them that if there is not much more widespread adoption of cost accounting practices for LAPC over the next six months, this increase may be rescinded at the next review of the charging schemes later this year.
	The schemes will be laid before both Houses and copies placed in the Libraries.

Nutrition

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the undertaking by the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to follow up points raised in the debate on food and nutrition on 30 January (HL Deb, col. 260), whether they will say:
	(a) when they will conduct a survey into the effects of the nutritional guidelines for schools, introduced on 1 April 2001, on the current content, take-up and cost of school meals;
	(b) when they will launch a campaign to promote healthy eating among young adults; and
	(c) what amount of money they consider is necessary for an adult to spend per week on food in order to ensure a healthy balanced diet.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department for Education and Skills is currently discussing with the Food Standards Agency how and when a survey should be launched to evaluate the operation of nutritional standards for school lunches. The DfES has no current plans to monitor the take up or cost of school meals.
	The FSA is currently conducting research which will lead to new ways of providing information on healthy eating to young adults by the summer.
	Various estimates have been made about the cost of a healthy balanced diet for an adult. In practice this will depend on a wide variety of factors including their circumstances and their dietary preferences.

Meat Hygiene

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Donoughue of 30 June 1999 (WA 33), whether spinal cord has been found in any United Kingdom slaughtered bovine carcass in the period since June 1999; and, if not, whether they yet consider it appropriate to reduce the level of inspection.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Food Standards Agency advises me that since 30 June 1999 there has been only one finding of bovine spinal cord in a health marked carcass. This was detected during a State Veterinary Service audit visit and did not enter the food chain. The material was removed and disposed of.
	The continued inspection of all carcasses for specified risk material is a vital public health protection and consumer reassurance measure. There are no plans to reduce the present level of inspection by the Meat Hygiene Service.

Meat Hygiene

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there have been any instances since 1 April 2001 of failure by the Meat Hygiene Service to provide a veterinary surgeon to a small or medium abattoir resulting in the closure of that business during the veterinary surgeon's absence; and, if so, who bore the costs of the closure.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are not aware of any instances since 1 April 2001 of a failure by the Meat Hygiene Service to provide a veterinary surgeon to a small or medium abattoir resulting in the closure of that business during the veterinary surgeon's absence. However, should the noble Baroness have details of such a case, I will be happy to look into it on her behalf, if she could forward them to me.

Meat Hygiene

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many occupiers of slaughterhouses have requested independent settlement of a disagreement over an additional charge levied by the Meat Hygiene Service; and whether any of those occupiers have made more than one such request.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Since April 2001, the operator of one slaughterhouse has appealed on one occasion against the issuing of an additional charge levied by the Meat Hygiene Service.

National Poisons Information Service

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 15 January 2001 (WA 110), how much funding, for what period and for what staff and equipment has been received by the National Poisons Information Service regional centres in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Newcastle upon Tyne, or their associated medical resource units, from the agrochemical company Syngenta (formerly Zeneca) from the beginning of 1998 to the present day.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The National Poisons Information Service regional centres in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Newcastle upon Tyne and their associated medical resource units have not received funding from the agrochemical company Syngenta (formerly Zeneca) from the beginning of 1998 to the present day.

Press Complaints Commission

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are considering suggesting to the newspaper industry any changes in the operation of the Press Complaints Commission.

Baroness Blackstone: The Government continue to monitor the effectiveness of the newspaper industry's system of self-regulation, including the terms of the industry's code of practice and the operations of the Press Complaints Commission. Ministers have no hesitation in suggesting improvements to the self-regulatory system to the industry as and when appropriate.

Broadcasting Licence Applications from Overseas Broadcasters

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria the Independent Television Commission are required to consider in dealing with applications for United Kingdom broadcasting licences from overseas broadcasters.

Baroness Blackstone: Sections 3 and 6(1) and Part II of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 set out the criteria which the Independent Television Commission (ITC) is required to consider, including that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that the licensed service would not offend good taste and decency, will present news with due accuracy and impartiality, present political and industrial issues impartially and show religious programmes responsibly. Additionally under the provisions of Section 143 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, if the ITC has grounds to suspect that an applicant is disqualified on grounds of being a political body, the commission is required to ask the applicant to provide further information to enable them to consult the appropriate authorities.

Broadcasting Licence Applications from Overseas Broadcasters

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the average time for the clearance by the Independent Television Commission of broadcasting licence applications from overseas broadcasters.

Baroness Blackstone: The Independent Television Commission does not have any specific information about the average time taken to process licences. The commision indicates in its guidelines to applicants that the process generally takes approximately four weeks, but the timing depends on the complexity of the application and whether the supporting information is sufficient.

Culture Online

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer of the Baroness Blackstone of 15 November 2001 (WA 103–04) in which she indicated that she hoped to make an announcement in the near future on the business case for Culture Online, what progress they have made in preparing the business case for publication; and what is currently the cost to the Treasury of the preparatory work to set up Culture Online carried out under the auspices of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Baroness Blackstone: We are continuing to consider a range of alternative options for Culture Online and hope to make an announcement very soon.
	Five million pounds was allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as part of the 2000 spending review to allow initial development of the project; the cost of developing our proposals for Culture Online so far is £1,833,555.

Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Blackstone on 20 March ((HL3269) regarding the award of Arts Council funds to the development of the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, what are the grounds upon which conditions of grant are considered "special" and therefore not open to public scrutiny.

Baroness Blackstone: Special conditions applied to the award of lottery funding are tailored to each particular project. They form part of the contractual agreement between the Arts Council and the board members of the recipient organisation. These conditions are listed in the accepted offer of grant and may contain financial or personal information which, if made public, would be detrimental to the value of the lottery grant or prove embarrassing to individuals related to the project. For example, the public availability of detailed budgetary information may compromise the ability of the budget holders to negotiate with suppliers or the conditions may include a stipulation relating to the position of existing staff or board members. The special conditions cannot be disclosed without the consent of the grantee organisation.